Inhofe: Global Warming Ppl, "The Third Reich"

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Tiny air bubbles trapped in ice give a history of the earth's atmosphere kind of like tree rings give a history of weather. The current level of greenhouse gasses is 27% higher than the highest point in the last 650,000 years. That kinda suggests that a condition or conditions exist now that have never existed before (or at least not for the past 0.65 million years). Now, what could that be?

That is assuming that the current scientific theories and procedures are correct and can accurately reflect what the air bubbles in the ice mean.  Obviously, internal combustion engines and other sources that burn hydrocarbon fuels emit CO, CO2 and other gasses, but how can we be for certain this is causing global warming and it's not just another warming cycle in the life-cycle of the planet.

This is a whole lot of worry about nothing right now.  The more imminent threat to us at the moment are the muslim extremists bent on destroying our way of life as we know it.

Concentrations of CO2 in an air sample is not exactly unproven science. And it's been scientifically accepted for centuries that the further you drill down into the polar ice, the farther back you're looking. No, it's not "proven" to anyone that's determined to not believe it. I suppose that we could just ignore it and go on with business as usual until it's too late to reverse it.

As far as Muslim extremists go, I think that's in another thread somewhere.

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

No one has done a polling of scientific minds to determine statistically who buys in and who doesn't.  To assert that most scientists believe a theory presumes to know with certainty how many do and don't believe and we simply don't know.

Wrong.

quote:The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Science Journal article regarding survey of 928 peer-reviewed studies

quote: From NY Times Film Review: Perhaps the most amazing statistic in An Inconvenient Truth is that of 900-plus peer-reviewed studies in recognized journals, not one has challenged the idea of global warming, whereas more than 53 percent of articles in the mainstream media have presented it as a theory or been careful to include the demurrals of a tiny handful of bought-and-paid-for scientists or politicians.

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Maybe I should have been more specific to say that they don't disbelieve in global warming. They are skeptical about the human factor so as to argue against jumping to conclusions and adopting massive changes that effect our economy like signing on to the Kyoto protocol.  Sorry if you thought I was arguing otherwise or I made it sound like I was.

quote:
Tiny air bubbles trapped in ice give a history of the earth's atmosphere kind of like tree rings give a history of weather. The current level of greenhouse gasses is 27% higher than the highest point in the last 650,000 years. That kinda suggests that a condition or conditions exist now that have never existed before (or at least not for the past 0.65 million years). Now, what could that be?

Why don't we leave answers to questions like these up to experts who know what they are talking about unlike you and I who like to take "facts" like this possibly out of context to try and prove our point.      

quote:
But even there, the evidence is strong that human activity is at least a significant factor.

Define significant.  This is where I think the argument rests and where dueling experts come into play.  If you are adamant about your position then provide us with some scientists who can quanitfy that statement and not make generalities.

I think the AAAS did a pretty good job of explaining what it meant even if we WERE idiots.  (Why do you assume that I can't figure out what this means? I sure don't remember offering my credentials here.) But that's irrelevant anyway because it doesn't take a PhD. in physics to figure out that if the CO2 level in the atmosphere is 27% higher than it's been in over half a million years, something's going on that hasn't gone on before. Sure, global temperatures fluctuate and there are trends and cycles in that and many other things related to Earth science. But none of the cycles last anywhere NEAR 650,000 years. After 650,000 years, you're not talking about a cycle anymore.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by papaspot

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Tiny air bubbles trapped in ice give a history of the earth's atmosphere kind of like tree rings give a history of weather. The current level of greenhouse gasses is 27% higher than the highest point in the last 650,000 years. That kinda suggests that a condition or conditions exist now that have never existed before (or at least not for the past 0.65 million years). Now, what could that be?

That is assuming that the current scientific theories and procedures are correct and can accurately reflect what the air bubbles in the ice mean.  Obviously, internal combustion engines and other sources that burn hydrocarbon fuels emit CO, CO2 and other gasses, but how can we be for certain this is causing global warming and it's not just another warming cycle in the life-cycle of the planet.

This is a whole lot of worry about nothing right now.  The more imminent threat to us at the moment are the muslim extremists bent on destroying our way of life as we know it.

Concentrations of CO2 in an air sample is not exactly unproven science. And it's been scientifically accepted for centuries that the further you drill down into the polar ice, the farther back you're looking. No, it's not "proven" to anyone that's determined to not believe it. I suppose that we could just ignore it and go on with business as usual until it's too late to reverse it.

As far as Muslim extremists go, I think that's in another thread somewhere.

Considering that we've only been exploring the polar areas of the earth for about a century, not centuries, that pretty well shoots your statement down about drilling into polar ice for centuries.

Are you aware that you can create CO2 with acid and carbonate minerals which are commonly found in rocks and water?  Are you aware that hydrochloric acid is a by-product of sodium choride (salt), which is abundant in sea water?  Through various heating and cooling cycles over time, it is possible for the sea to create it's own CO2, as well as the normal plant life-cycle.

Collecting data from polar ice is based on theory.  

It is easy to manipulate data to reflect what ever point a scientist wishes to prove.  A scientist who sets out to prove there is global warming will eventually be able to prove it.  A scientist who sets out to disprove global warming will eventually be able to dis-prove it.  

If there had been an average rise in temperature over the last century of say, 10 degrees, then sure, I'd be more worried about it.  In reality, what are we talking about, one degree in the last century?

[iplaw]

The fact that carbon dioxide and methane levels were lower during the relatively mild warm periods of the two additional cycles, compared to the warmer warm periods of the last 400,000 years, is especially interesting for the study of climate sensitivity, which is a measure of how the climate system reacts when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations double, explained Science author Dominique Raynaud from LGGE in Grenoble, France.

First, interesting how CO2 levels doubled in the past without human interaction.

Second, another simple question one might ask is why these "tiny bubbles" of air trapped in the ice seem to ignore Fick's Law of Diffusion.  I do remember enough from my properties of materials class to remember that gasses can and do diffuse through a solid membrane.  Sounds like a plausible scenario to me to explain why this is an unreliable method of measuring ancient CO2 levels, but what do I know since I don't read all the good scientific journals.

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

If there had been an average rise in temperature over the last century of say, 10 degrees, then sure, I'd be more worried about it.

If there had been an average rise in temperature over the last century of "say, 10 degrees," I doubt you would be even slightly worried about it.  You would probably be dead.

[iplaw]

No one want to explain to me how Fick's Law doesn't apply?

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by papaspot

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Tiny air bubbles trapped in ice give a history of the earth's atmosphere kind of like tree rings give a history of weather. The current level of greenhouse gasses is 27% higher than the highest point in the last 650,000 years. That kinda suggests that a condition or conditions exist now that have never existed before (or at least not for the past 0.65 million years). Now, what could that be?

That is assuming that the current scientific theories and procedures are correct and can accurately reflect what the air bubbles in the ice mean.  Obviously, internal combustion engines and other sources that burn hydrocarbon fuels emit CO, CO2 and other gasses, but how can we be for certain this is causing global warming and it's not just another warming cycle in the life-cycle of the planet.

This is a whole lot of worry about nothing right now.  The more imminent threat to us at the moment are the muslim extremists bent on destroying our way of life as we know it.

Concentrations of CO2 in an air sample is not exactly unproven science. And it's been scientifically accepted for centuries that the further you drill down into the polar ice, the farther back you're looking. No, it's not "proven" to anyone that's determined to not believe it. I suppose that we could just ignore it and go on with business as usual until it's too late to reverse it.

As far as Muslim extremists go, I think that's in another thread somewhere.

Considering that we've only been exploring the polar areas of the earth for about a century, not centuries, that pretty well shoots your statement down about drilling into polar ice for centuries.

Oh my gosh!! I have exaggerated! You have completely refuted my point based on an exaggeration for effect!!

quote:
Are you aware that you can create CO2 with acid and carbonate minerals which are commonly found in rocks and water?

No! Seriously? Are you aware that there are a few major differences between rocks and ice?

quote:
Are you aware that hydrochloric acid is a by-product of sodium choride (salt), which is abundant in sea water?  Through various heating and cooling cycles over time, it is possible for the sea to create it's own CO2, as well as the normal plant life-cycle.

So would you care to offer a theory of the mechanism of how this might have happened?

As far as the plant life-cycle, we're not talking about the rain forest here. We're talking about the polar cap. Plants are kinda sparse in that part of the world and a complete lack of fossil evidence suggests that it's been pretty devoid of plants for some time. (Like the last 650,000 years or so.)

quote:
Collecting data from polar ice is based on theory.  

Pretty much like all the REST of science, wouldn't you say?

quote:
It is easy to manipulate data to reflect what ever point a scientist wishes to prove.  A scientist who sets out to prove there is global warming will eventually be able to prove it.  A scientist who sets out to disprove global warming will eventually be able to dis-prove it.

Okay, as a lawyer and an engineer, I expected iplaw to be very concise and exact in what he said yet he clarified that by "global warming" he didn't mean global warming but meant human induced warming. Is that what you mean? If you're going to talk with credibility about science, it's helpful if you say exactly what you mean so that there's no ambiguity. If you really ARE saying that we are not in a state of global warming, then I won't waste any more time arguing with you.

quote:
If there had been an average rise in temperature over the last century of say, 10 degrees, then sure, I'd be more worried about it.  In reality, what are we talking about, one degree in the last century?

If we had had a ten degree rise in the average global temperature, even YOU would not be arguing that the science isn't there.

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

The fact that carbon dioxide and methane levels were lower during the relatively mild warm periods of the two additional cycles, compared to the warmer warm periods of the last 400,000 years, is especially interesting for the study of climate sensitivity, which is a measure of how the climate system reacts when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations double, explained Science author Dominique Raynaud from LGGE in Grenoble, France.

First, interesting how CO2 levels doubled in the past without human interaction.

Second, another simple question one might ask is why these "tiny bubbles" of air trapped in the ice seem to ignore Fick's Law of Diffusion.  I do remember enough from my properties of materials class to remember that gasses can and do diffuse through a solid membrane.  Sounds like a plausible scenario to me to explain why this is an unreliable method of measuring ancient CO2 levels, but what do I know since I don't read all the good scientific journals.

1. Fick's Law of Diffusion applies to a material in a mixture and you are trying to apply it to ice and CO2. They are not a mixture.

2. Yes, gasses CAN diffuse across a membrane. But a solid casing of ice is hardly a membrane.

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

No one want to explain to me how Fick's Law doesn't apply?

I just did. Sorry that I wasn't fast enough for ya. I'll try to be faster next time. I mean, I know how rude it is to keep someone waiting on a message forum for TWENTY-SIX MINUTES while you reply to other posts. How shameful of me. I promise...it won't happen again.

[iplaw]

quote:
1. Fick's Law of Diffusion applies to a material in a mixture and you are trying to apply it to ice and CO2. They are not a mixture.

Wrong, it relates equally as well to a scenario such as a two liter bottle of soda which can be analogized. Plastic bottle is the ice, soda contains CO2 like air trapped in the bubbles does.  The membrane is much thicker in the sense of a glacier but the delta of time is MUCH greater 650,000 years which is plenty of time for diffusion to take effect.

quote:
2. Yes, gasses CAN diffuse across a membrane. But a solid casing of ice is hardly a membrane.

Wrong again.  Gasses do diffuse through materials even as dense as metal such as hydrogen through palladium.  You read too much into the term membrane it's not that restrictive.  Don't believe me? Leave a can of your favorite beer in the pantry for a few years and crack it open to see what you get.  NO BUBBLES.  You are also assuming that glaciers just appeared as a solid block.  They were formed with successive layers over years, each layer was itself subject to diffusion.

[TheArtist]

I am sure SOMEONE would have thought of the possibility that gases trapped in ice could change in relative concentration over time and would have taken that into account if needed. The fact that there are bubbles in the ice means that at least not all gases follow this flicks law in this instance.

 As for the idea that the lower you go down into the ice, seems to me it cant be too far from the Law of Superposition, which dates from the 17th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Superposition

[iplaw]

Regardless of whether it layers or not, Fick's law actually INCREASES diffusion when pressure increases.  Actually argues for my point and not against it.

[iplaw]

quote:
The fact that there are bubbles in the ice means that at least not all gases follow this flicks law in this instance.

This statement is just dumb.  It's not called a law if things don't behave accordingly.  I never asserted that ALL gasses, 100% of the concentration would dissapear.  It just happens to be that all those damn deltas in the eqations create too many variables, like time and pressure which we can't supply data for.  I.E. the equation can't be solved without proper data.

quote:
I am sure SOMEONE would have thought of the possibility that gases trapped in ice could change in relative concentration over time and would have taken that into account if needed.

And you would think that scientists would remember to convert units before making calculations too wouldn't you.  Surely SOMEONE would have caught this.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
1. Fick's Law of Diffusion applies to a material in a mixture and you are trying to apply it to ice and CO2. They are not a mixture.

Wrong, it relates equally as well to a scenario such as a two liter bottle of soda which can be analogized. Plastic bottle is the ice, soda contains CO2 like air trapped in the bubbles does.  The membrane is much thicker in the sense of a glacier but the delta of time is MUCH greater 650,000 years which is plenty of time for diffusion to take effect.

Wrong. It is concentrations that are being measured. Yes, a minute amount of CO2 will escape the bubbles...along with minute amounts of the OTHER gasses involved. A concentration is a RATIO. You conveniently overlook that fact.

quote:
2. Yes, gasses CAN diffuse across a membrane. But a solid casing of ice is hardly a membrane.

quote:
Wrong again.  Gasses do diffuse through materials even as dense as metal such as hydrogen through palladium.  You read too much into the term membrane it's not that restrictive.  Don't believe me? Leave a can of your favorite beer in the pantry for a few years and crack it open to see what you get.  NO BUBBLES.  You are also assuming that glaciers just appeared as a solid block.  They were formed with successive layers over years, each layer was itself subject to diffusion.

That's a pretty wild assumption. When they make a beer can without seams, your analogy might be relevant. And again, you completely and conveniently ignore the fact that we are talking about ratios--partial pressures, not total content.